DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending. Claim 7 is canceled. Claims 14-20 remain withdrawn.
In view of the amendment, filed 05/12/2026, the following objections and rejections are withdrawn from the previous Office Action mailed 01/12/2026:
Drawing, specification, and claim objections
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Prior art rejections are updated according to claim amendments.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: Fig. 4 of the replacement sheet submitted 05/12/2026 does not contain lead lines for the reference characters 104, 134, and 102. See 37 CFR 1.84. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the term “mono-material” in the last line. The specification describes a polyethylene-based mono-material ([0055]) and that a mono-material can include fabric and filament of chemically identical resins or the resins can differ by macromolecule configuration and/or molecular weight ([0072]). Multiple types of PE-based resins are described/known ([0064]). The term is interpreted in view of the specification to mean that the constituent parts of the product (fabric and filaments) are based on the same material – in this case, polyethylene.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busbee, US 20210039399 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Busbee discloses a method for forming a fully-fashioned polyethylene (PE) polymer textile (3D printing onto textile for making footwear, [0005], [0013], [0060]; polyethylene, [0101]),
The textile comprising at least one of: one or more yarns that form at least one of a woven or a knitted fabric (the textile being woven or knit fabric, [0101], [0121]); note that Busbee also discloses a non-woven material, [0101]),
The method comprising combining the at least one of woven, knitted, or nonwoven fabric (woven/knit/non-woven textile substrate, [0101]) with one or more filaments (extruded thermoplastic filaments, [0102], [0139]) in a 3D printing process that creates a 3D printed pattern (3D printing via extrusion, [0082], for layered deposition onto substrate/textile, [0079], [0098]-[0099], [0122], see also Figs. 9-11) to fuse the one or more filaments into the woven, knitted, or nonwoven fabric (the material is deposited onto the substrate, [0009], and attached to the substrate, the substrate being the textile, [0013]; the melted material being flowable and conforming to the substrate, [0181], such that it fuses into the fabric).
Busbee does not disclose specifically using both PE fabric and PE filaments such that a mono-material is formed.
However, Busbee discloses each of the 3D printed thermoplastic material and the substrate being at least 50% polyethylene ([0040]). Busbee teaches the textile substrate (fabric) consisting of a thermoplastic with identical chemical composition to the 3D printed portion (filaments), such that they can be recycled without the need to separate the parts at end of life ([0013]), i.e., that the fabric and the filament form a mono-material. Busbee further discloses the 3D printed thermoplastic polymer being polyethylene ([0101], also describing the thermoplastic polymer for 3D printing being selected to match the thermoplastic textile substrate).
Accordingly, Busbee discloses the filaments being PE and teaches the fabric being the same material as the filaments. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use PE filaments, as disclosed by Busbee, and to specify the fabric was a PE fabric such that it matched the filaments, such that a mono-material was formed, in order to form the article composed of the same material to facilitate recycling without the need for further separation at end of the life of the product, as taught by Busbee.
Regarding claim 2, modified Busbee discloses the method of claim 1, wherein combining the at least one of the woven, knitted, or nonwoven PE fabric with the one or more PE filaments in the 3D printing process further comprises extruding the one or more PE filaments (extruding, [0060]) directly onto the at least one of the woven, knitted, or nonwoven PE fabric to form the mono-material (extruding onto textile substrate, [0060], [0127], Figs. 9-11).
Regarding claim 3, modified Busbee discloses the method of claim 1. Busbee further discloses thermal bonding/forming or exposure of the product to elevated temperatures after the 3D printing ([0100]), which is considered to meet at least high-temperature annealing.
Regarding claim 11, modified Busbee discloses the method of claim 1. In the above described process, Busbee discloses printing the filament directly onto the fabric substrate (e.g., Figs. 9-11 printing onto substrate 1020) and does not disclose a requirement for adhesive, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the fully-fashioned PE polymer textile is substantially free of adhesives between the at least one of the woven, knitted, or nonwoven PE fabric or the one or more PE filaments.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busbee, US 20210039399 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sahanga et al., US 20220143873 A1.
Regarding claim 4, modified Busbee discloses the method of claim 1. Busbee does not disclose one or more of melt-blowing or spin-bonding one or more types of PE resins to form the nonwoven PE fabric when the textile comprises one or more types of PE resins that form the nonwoven PE fabric.
In the analogous art of recycling and manufacturing shoes comprising parts made from the same material class (Abstract), Sahanga discloses melt-blowing a thermoplastic polymer to form a nonwoven fabric ([0072], [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify the PE fabric was nonwoven fabric formed by melt-blowing a thermoplastic PE resin, a known technique for forming nonwoven fabrics as shown by Sahanga, in order to predictably form a nonwoven fabric as a substrate for the process of Busbee, a suitable type of the fabric substrate as disclosed by Busbee ([0101]).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busbee, US 20210039399 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mihan et al., US 20220259416 A1.
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Busbee discloses the method of claim 1. Busbee further discloses changing the nozzle or substrate temperature during printing, which affects the viscosity of the printed mixture, to facilitate particular properties ([0162]).
Busbee is silent as to optimizing at least one of a viscosity or a melt flow index of the at least one of the PE fabric or the one or more PE filaments to prevent one or more of filament buckling, under-extrusion, or nozzle blockage during the 3D printing process. Busbee therefore does not disclose the viscosity is optimized to achieve a melt flow index approximately in a range from about 1 gram per 10 minutes to about 15 grams per 10 minutes.
In view of the specification, “optimizing” is interpreted to encompass setting the printing material/blend and/or process parameters for successful printing ([0097]-[0106]).
In the analogous art, Mihan discloses polyethylene compositions for extrusion-based additive manufacturing (Abstract). Mihan teaches the polyethylene composition being formulated as a blend of polyethylene components ([0015]-[0016]) so as to have a melt flow index of from 0.1 to 100 g/10 minutes, or from 0.5 to 50 g/10 minutes ([0040]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). The composition provides for successful and controllable extrusion-based additive manufacturing of functional 3D articles ([0088]-[0091]) and therefore is reasonably understood as achieving the intended result of avoiding extrusion failures such as under-extrusion or nozzle blockage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Busbee to include optimizing at least one of a viscosity or a melt flow index of the one or more PE filaments to prevent one or more of filament buckling, under-extrusion, or nozzle blockage during the 3D printing process, wherein the viscosity of the one or more PE filaments is optimized to achieve a melt flow index approximately in a range from about 1 gram per 10 minutes to about 15 grams per 10 minutes in order to specify a suitable polyethylene composition for extrusion based additive manufacturing, as taught by Mihan.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busbee, US 20210039399 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gorin et al., US 20210299948 A1, with evidentiary support from Plastec Profiles, Typical properties of polyethylene (PE).
Regarding claim 8, modified Busbee discloses the method of claim 1. Busbee does not disclose a coefficient of thermal expansion of the PE fabric or the one or more PE filaments is minimized to approximately a range from about 60 to about 150 µm/m-°C.
In the analogous art, Gorin discloses 3D printing of polyethylene materials by fused filament fabrication (Abstract). Gorin teaches formulating a thermoplastic blend based on HDPE and LDPE for extrusion ([0006]-[0007], [0011]), the blend comprising primarily HDPE ([0006]), that avoids warpage of the part ([0012]). A blend of HDPE and LDPE would have been reasonably expected to have a coefficient of thermal expansion between the CTE for LDPE and HDPE. Typical CTE values for these materials are provided below as evidenced by Plastec Profiles (unit conversion using ASM Unit Converter):
CTE
LDPE
HDPE
10-5 in/in-°F
5.6
12.2
6.1
7.2
µm/m-°C
100.8
219.6
109.8
129.6
Accordingly, Gorin teaches a printable PE blend that avoids warpage of the polyethylene-based material that has a CTE within the range of approximately 100 to 220 µm/m-°C, overlapping the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select at least the overlapping portion of the range in providing the polyethylene filaments for 3D printing in order to avoid warpage of the part, as taught by Gorin, such that a coefficient of thermal expansion of at least the PE filaments was minimized to the overlapping portion of the range to reduce warpage of the PE product.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busbee, US 20210039399 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Henry et al., WO 2021154292 A1.
Regarding claim 9, modified Busbee discloses the method of claim 1. Busbee is silent as to setting a printing speed of the 3D printing process to approximately a range of about 10 to about 80 mm/s.
In the analogous art, Henry discloses performing FDM type additive manufacturing to fabricate three-dimensional elements on a fabric support structure (Abstract). Henry teaches typical printing speeds (travel speeds) ranging from 600 to 1500 mm/min or higher ([0046]), equivalent to about 10 to 25 mm/s or higher. The prior art range overlaps and is within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select for the similar 3D printing process of Busbee at least the overlapping portion of the range as taught by Henry in order to specify a suitable printing speed for the process of extruding onto fabric with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, modified Busbee discloses the method of claim 1. Busbee is silent as to setting a nozzle-to-textile distance of the 3D printing process to approximately a range of about 0.1 to about 0.3 mm.
In the analogous art, Henry, introduced above, further discloses setting a nozzle-to-textile distance of the 3D printing process to a range of about 0.01 to about 0.3 mm, particularly to 0.2 mm ([0045]). The claimed range overlaps the prior art range, and the particular example of 0.2 mm is entirely within the claimed range. See MPEP 2131.03 (I) and 2144.05 (I).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set for the 3D printing process of Busbee a nozzle-to-textile distance of approximately 0.1 to about 0.3 mm as taught by Henry in order to specify a suitable distance for 3D printing onto the fabric from above with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busbee, US 20210039399 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sahanga et al., US 20220143873 A1, and Termann et al., DE 102018002067 A1 (Espacenet translation provided 01/12/2026 referenced below).
Regarding claim 12, modified Busbee discloses the method of claim 1. Busbee discloses that the product comprised of the same type of material can be recycled ([0013], [0101]) and Busbee teaches the material of the product being polyethylene ([0101], see claim 1).
Accordingly, Busbee as set forth for claim 1 at least suggests recycling the fully-fashioned PE product composed of the polymer textile, exemplified as footwear ([0005]). Busbee is silent as to pelletizing the fully-fashioned PE polymer textile to form a modified one or more types of PE resins.
In the analogous art, Sahanga discloses recycling a shoe comprising components made from the same thermoplastic base material (Abstract, [0055]), wherein a fully-fashioned polymer textile is pelletized to form one or more types of resin from the same material (forming milled particles 212 from the shoe 100, Figs. 1-2, [0055]-[0056], the particles being further extruded, Fig. 3, [0061]). Sahanga teaches the extruded intermediate products can produce high-quality recycled products such as a yarn, a film, and/or pellets for further processing into new shoe components ([0062]-[0064], Fig. 3). Sahanga applies the process to thermoplastic base material polymers but exemplifies use of TPU or polyamide (e.g., [0032]) and not specifically polyethylene.
In the analogous art of PE recycling for 3D printing ([0001], [0024]), Termann discloses a similar process of recycling used thermoplastic materials in order to produce new objects by 3D printing ([0010], [0022]-[0024]), the material being polyethylene ([0021], [0023]). Termann also teaches producing granules from the PE material, which are further processed into a filament that can be used in a conventional 3D printer ([0023]-[0024]). As such, Termann supports that a similar thermoplastic recycling process had been successfully applied to polyethylene-based materials.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recycling described by Busbee to specify a step of pelletizing the fully-fashioned PE polymer textile to form a modified one or more types of PE resins in order to provide the capability of recycling the single material product to make new high quality materials for further manufacturing processes from the thermoplastic polyethylene-based product, as taught by Sahanga and Termann.
Regarding claim 13, modified Busbee discloses the method of claim 12. The combination as set forth above did not address the additional steps of chopping or grinding, melting, and re-pelletizing as claimed.
However, Sahanga and Termann further disclose recycling the fully-fashioned PE polymer textile by at least one of chopping or grinding the mono-material into smaller pieces that form a PE recyclate (Sahanga: milling the mono-material shoe to produce the particles, Fig. 2, [0056]; Termann: crushing PE material, [0023]); melting the PE recyclate (Sahanga: melting the particles for extruding intermediate product, Fig. 3, [0061]; Termann: melting, [0023]); and re-pelletizing the melted PE recyclate (Sahanga: forming pellets 332 from the recycled particles, Fig. 3, [0064]; Termann: obtaining granules after melting, [0023]) to form a second PE polymer textile (Sahanga: that is further processed for forming another polymer textile product, such as a shoe, [0064], Fig. 3; Termann: further processed to form PE filament, [0024]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the recycling described by Busbee to further specify the processing steps of chopping or grinding, melting, and re-pelletizing as claimed in order to recycle the single material product to make new high quality materials for additional polymer textile products from an existing thermoplastic polyethylene-based product, as taught by Sahanga and Termann.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (pp. 9-11) that a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of Busbee would not have had a reasonable expectation of success combining the at least one PE fabric with one or more PE filaments in a 3D printing process to fuse the one or more PE filaments into the PE fabric. Applicant refers to statements made in other prior art of record regarding different 3D printing processes using PE materials. Applicant argues (p. 10) that claim 1 does not merely recite depositing PE onto a generic build plate but requires that the 3D printing process fuses the one or more PE filaments into the PE fabric, where the PE filaments should penetrate and bond with the fabric structure at a level sufficient to create a unified mono-material product. Applicant argues (p. 11) that Busbee’s “sole mention” of polyethylene is in a laundry list of materials, and Busbee’s preferred materials are thermoplastic polyurethanes, not PE.
These arguments are not found persuasive. Busbee’s references to using a polyethylene material for 3D printing as well as for the textile material onto which the material is printed ([0040], [0101]), in addition to teachings to use a same material composition for both the fabric and the filaments (e.g., [0013]), provide a basis for reasonable expectation of success in combining the PE fabric with the PE filaments in the 3D printing process. Patents are relevant as prior art for all they contain. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. MPEP 2123.
Regarding fusing the PE filaments into the PE fabric via the 3D printing, Busbee is not limited to printing on a generic base plate but instead describes printing onto the textile substrate (e.g., [0021], [0040], [0060], [0101], Figs. 9-11), where the printed material is melted and flowable when deposited so as to conform to the substrate on which it is deposited ([0181]). The printed article is attached/adhered to the textile substrate ([0013]), and Busbee describes changing parameters to affect viscosity of the mixture and/or adhesion to the substrate ([0162]). Attaching and adhering the printed filaments to the fabric substrate onto which they are printed in a melted and flowable state via the 3D printing process meets fusing the filaments into the fabric such that a mono-material is formed as recited in the claim.
Regarding Applicant’s citations to statements made in other prior art of record (pp. 9-10), these references were not relied upon in the rejection of claim 1. Still, it is noted that the citation from Vidakis is specific to adhesion to a build plate. The 3D printing cited in Busbee is onto a textile substrate and not a build plate. Applicant’s argument concerning Gorin does not support a lack of a reasonable expectation of success in Busbee. A nonspecific amount of warpage in a different process does not inherently equate to a print failure, and reducing potential warpage is simply an improvement on an existing process. Furthermore, Gorin’s statements regarding warpage are specific to using HDPE. Busbee is not limited to HDPE. Applicant’s citation from the Chong reference is also specific to HDPE and is unpersuasive since neither the claims or Busbee are limited to this material.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights